Christian Bigotry

a reply to: chr0naut

There is a wealth of documentary evidence about the existence of Jesus (even from sources antagonistic to Christianity) but of course, if you dismiss every bit of evidence because it is "religious", then there isn't any.

That's not why your so called "evidence" gets dismissed.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

There is a wealth of documentary evidence about the existence of Jesus (even from sources antagonistic to Christianity) but of course, if you dismiss every bit of evidence because it is "religious", then there isn't any.

That's not why your so called "evidence" gets dismissed.

So, why would one dismiss the four gospels?

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think that the gospels were originally intended to be taken as literal history. They started out as a list of saying to live by. The Jesus narrative, in my opinion, is a capsulized tale of the Jewish people and their struggles up until the end of their world and the culmination of their religion. It's all metaphor and allegory.

Other than that, the gospels were NOT written by eye witnesses, never claimed to be written by their namesakes, and were written many decades, and then some, after the supposed advent. They've been translated, edited, interpolated and censored.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think that the gospels were originally intended to be taken as literal history. They started out as a list of saying to live by. The Jesus narrative, in my opinion, is a capsulized tale of the Jewish people and their struggles up until the end of their world and the culmination of their religion. It's all metaphor and allegory.

Other than that, the gospels were NOT written by eye witnesses, never claimed to be written by their namesakes, and were written many decades, and then some, after the supposed advent. They've been translated, edited, interpolated and censored.

Since the entire New Testament makes no mention of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the diaspora of the Jews after AD 70. It does date the writings of the New Testament to a 37 year window between the Crucifixion and then.

The Gospel of John clearly states that it was written by "the disciple whom Jesus loved" identifying the author as one of the disciples and also in John 19:35 states that the writer was an eyewitness to the Crucifxion. Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 (the earliest copies copies of the gospel) are titled "The Gospel According to John".

The other gospels do not explicitly mention that they were eyewitness accounts or the specific identity of the authors but that does not negate the content of the accounts.

Due to the timing of the writing of the gospels and their historically identified content, there is no reason to believe that they should be attributed to someone other than the traditionally proscribed writers.

The chain of commonality between the gospels also links them in time and location and could be taken that validation of the content of one, validates the content of the other gospels.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Herolotus

I am sure that if you are so interested in historical records concurrent with contemporaries and not sources hundreds of years later, can you provide us evidence that Socrates also existed?

Socrates

Socrates (/ˈsɒkrətiːz/;[2] Greek: Σωκράτης [sɔːkrátɛːs], Sōkrátēs; 470/469 – 399 BC)[1] was a classical Greek (Athenian) philosopher credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy. He is an enigmatic figure known chiefly through the accounts of classical writers, especially the writings of his students Plato and Xenophon and the plays of his contemporary Aristophanes. Plato's dialogues are among the most comprehensive accounts of Socrates to survive from antiquity, though it is unclear the degree to which Socrates himself is "hidden behind his 'best disciple', Plato".[3]

Hmm, he is written about by his disciples, nothing was written by him, and yet do you believe that Socrates existed?

We could say the same about quite a few ancient Greek and Roman historical figures. We mostly only know about them because someone else wrote about them at a remove of a generation or more. And yet, no one else doubts they existed.

Only one side can be right.

Personally, I am on the fence in regards to there being a historical Jesus. Both sides raise some good points in my opinion. I am however, keenly aware that lying for Christ was something at least a few key figures in the history of the church were willing to do without second thought. Eusebius, and Martin Luther come to mind. Perhaps the OP can comment?

As for historical and archeological evidence to support the Christian narrative, I have to ask. What is there? I don't doubt that there are intelligent Christians who look into the past. Often I find that they only look so far though. They stop when going any further would cause their faith to unravel. Or they attribute what doesn't line up, to fallen angels or demons with intent to deceive and lead astray.

Understand that I'm not saying there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that is true, or that nobody in it actually existed. It's the narrative of being, the "way the truth and the life". Being divinely inspired by a one true God etc. The evidence is clear, in my mind, that what shaped the Abrahamic religions was the surrounding cultures, the places, and the times.

a reply to: chr0naut

Since the entire New Testament makes no mention of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the diaspora of the Jews after AD 70. It does date the writings of the New Testament to a 37 year window between the Crucifixion and then.

Of course the New Testament DOES describe the siege and the destruction of Pompeii too!

Matthew 24 is all about the Jewish wars and the Siege of Jerusalem as well.

Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

The day Jesus died? The biblical narrative describes the destruction of Pompeii and the eruption of Mt Vesuvius; "The end of the world" and God's retribution of the wicked!

All of the gospels are anonymous, including the Gospel According to John, which is claimed to have been written by a shadowy "beloved disciple". It was written in Greek. John the son of Zebedee would probably not have know how to write at all, as he was a fisherman, and certainly didn't know how to write in Greek!

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

I don't think that the gospels were originally intended to be taken as literal history. They started out as a list of saying to live by. The Jesus narrative, in my opinion, is a capsulized tale of the Jewish people and their struggles up until the end of their world and the culmination of their religion. It's all metaphor and allegory.

Other than that, the gospels were NOT written by eye witnesses, never claimed to be written by their namesakes, and were written many decades, and then some, after the supposed advent. They've been translated, edited, interpolated and censored.

Then what if we went by the Book of Isaiah? It has been found to be word for word as it is in the Bible, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that much.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't think any of the Bible is meant to be taken a literal or historic.

a reply to: Herolotus

Before I begin, I would like to give out my personal appreciation to all of the very well informed members that have rightly denounced the historical existence of this man to be the impervious mystery that it is, and likely will remain.

LLOLOLOLOLLOL your not even worth debate.....im here to eat...feed the troll

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

I don't think any of the Bible is meant to be taken a literal or historic.

Then literally you should not eat, drink and be merry as your profile comment says? That's from the Bible.

Literally, you should have no mirth, maybe only allegorical mirth?

Anyway, at least that is one verse you find comfort in, even if it might have been edited, transliterated, abused or otherwise, maybe not even written.

I say this smiling and winking, of course.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Then literally you should not eat, drink and be merry as your profile comment says? That's from the Bible.

I'm not seeing your point. Do YOU think that there's NO better than eating and drinking and laughing?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Since the entire New Testament makes no mention of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and the diaspora of the Jews after AD 70. It does date the writings of the New Testament to a 37 year window between the Crucifixion and then.

Of course the New Testament DOES describe the siege and the destruction of Pompeii too!

Matthew 24 is all about the Jewish wars and the Siege of Jerusalem as well.

Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

The day Jesus died? The biblical narrative describes the destruction of Pompeii and the eruption of Mt Vesuvius; "The end of the world" and God's retribution of the wicked!

All of the gospels are anonymous, including the Gospel According to John, which is claimed to have been written by a shadowy "beloved disciple". It was written in Greek. John the son of Zebedee would probably not have know how to write at all, as he was a fisherman, and certainly didn't know how to write in Greek!

The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.
en.wikipedia.org...

Matthew 24 describes the "abomination that leads to desolation" being placed in the Temple, "wars and rumors of wars", "famines, pestilences and earthquakes in various places", the gospel being preached to "all the world as a witness to all the nations" and many false prophets "coming in His name" before the destruction of Jerusalem, so obviously it is NOT talking about the AD 70 event.

Jesus describes these things as signs of the "end of the age" (literally the completion of time). Not events in AD 70 or AD 79 (the Vesuvius eruption).

... and to continue the passage:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other".

Context is important.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Then literally you should not eat, drink and be merry as your profile comment says? That's from the Bible.

I'm not seeing your point. Do YOU think that there's NO better than eating and drinking and laughing?

You say that the Bible is not to be taken literally or historically, but you have a Bible verse in your thingy below your post.

Then I commended mirth because a man hath no better thing under the sun than to eat and to drink and to be merry Ecclesiastes 8:15

So it must be allegorical.

a reply to: WarminIndy

So it must be allegorical.

Yes, of course it is.

a reply to: windword

Me neither. I think it should be read objectively.

a reply to: chr0naut

Jesus describes these things as signs of the "end of the age" (literally the completion of time). Not AD 70.

I know that's the way modern Christians interpret Matthew 24, but everything Jesus talked about happened in 70 AD. The "end of the age" the coup d gras, was when Mt Vesuvius erupted. Revelation!

The end of the Jewish culture, culmination of their religions and the end of their world all happened in the New Testament.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: chr0naut

Jesus describes these things as signs of the "end of the age" (literally the completion of time). Not AD 70.

I know that's the way modern Christians interpret Matthew 24, but everything Jesus talked about happened in 70 AD. The "end of the age" the coup d gras, was when Mt Vesuvius erupted. Revelation!

The end of the Jewish culture, culmination of their religions and the end of their world all happened in the New Testament.

Sorry, I was post-editing my previous post.

Matthew 24:29-31 makes it plain that Jesus was not talking about any 1st century event, which is why modern Christians believe it to be about the end of days.

a reply to: chr0naut

Matthew 24:29-31 makes it plain that Jesus was not talking about any 1st century event, which is why modern Christians believe it to be about the end of days.

Mt Vesuvius! HELLO!

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

23 1 Thus day was turned into night and light into darkness. Some thought that the Giants were rising again in revolt (for at this time also many of their forms could be discerned in the smoke and, moreover, a sound as of trumpets was heard), while others believed that the whole universe was being resolved into chaos or fire. 2 Therefore they fled, some from the houses into the streets, others from outside into the houses, now from the sea to the land and now from the land to the sea; for in their excitement they regarded any place where they were not as safer than where they were. 3 While this was going on, an inconceivable quantity of ashes was blown out, which covered both sea and land and filled all the air. It wrought much injury of various kinds, as chance befell, to men and farms and cattle, and in particular it destroyed all fish and birds.
penelope.uchicago.edu...*.html

a reply to: windword

it's not an either / or, it's a combo of both. some of the events transpire in 70ad, some don't transpire till the end of the precessional age